From: Stevan Steve Allen (scallen@us.ibm.com)
Date: 01/16/03-01:51:52 PM Z
Subject: Mandatory vs. Advisory Message-ID: <OF8ABC8B8C.1AAD2DBF-ON88256CB0.0007BF69@us.ibm.com> From: Stevan Steve Allen <scallen@us.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:51:52 -0800 At my location we are attempting to evaluate the need to add NLM support to our NFSv3 client due to NFSv4 mandatory locking... Someone locally made the statement that NFSv4 mandatory locking is provided solely to insure "data integrity". And data integrity can only be provided if everyone (all NFS versions) performs locking (e.g. no advisory locking allowed). To provide data integrity, a server implementation may decide to enforce mandatory locking for NFSv3. The last statement contradicts the original NFSv3 protocol which assumes the nfs server is unaware of what locks are held (by lockd) while processing a client read or write request. The questions are: o) Is anyone planning to enforce mandatory locking on their server for NFSv3? o) If a NFSv3 client does not support NLM and an NFSv3 server requires mandatory locking (describes a failure case with no user bypass), are both/neither considered to be abiding by the NFSv3 protocol? o) Is it expected that all NFSv3 clients need to support NLM (or unmonitored locking) because of mandatory locking? Thanks for any clarification.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:50:46 AM Z CST